Marriage in California

[Shock]

Gay people are gay.

 

[highfigh]

Why do you people make this leap that allowing same sex marriages will lead to people marring sheep?

People can't marry sheep, they can only date a few times until one family, or the other, finds out and tells them to break it off.

"The difference is the sheep can not say "I love you" nor can the TV."

But the look in their eyes says it all.

And, according to the TV commercial, "Nothing says 'love', like a Subaru".

 

[highfigh]

Gay people are gay.

But, are they happy?

 

[Patrukas777]

... not quite.
He just said that if there was unfaithfulness in a marriage then divorce is not the cause of adultery.
You're still suppose to stay married to the whore.

I'd like to spend the rest of my day teaching Sunday school but I got stuff to do.

Check out Matthew 19 3-9

 

[Gizmologist]

sorry but..

Quoting the catholic "church" on the subject of morality is a bit of an oxymoron.

 

[10010011]

I don't know what you mean by "you people"?

I suggest you re-read the part of the OP that said "I give you a little humor"

The fact that you've totally misunderstood my post is a good example why I always say...
Kids stay in school!

It does not take an extensive education to see that "joke" is merely political commentary thinly disguised as an attempt at humor.

I am surprised the mods have not pulled this thread already.

 

[Nemo128]

I don't think it is a mockery. Who said one cannot or shouldn't divorce? Is that worse than driving a partner to insanity? Or the kids? It is a contract and contracts are broken all the time.

It illustrates the fact that people get into something without fully appreciating the seriousness of the commitment. When people treat marriages as they do jobs, it is certainly making a mockery of the concept.

First timers have much better odds at making it stick

No, people who engage in a long term monogamous relationship, cohabitate, and truly know each other before deciding on marriage have better odds. Marriage requires a couple bucks and a couple witnesses. Today it's easier to get married, divorced, and remarried than to find gainful employment!

 

[highfigh]

IMO, too many people get married before they really know each other. This often worked before because in bad times, just surviving is a common goal of both people, like during the Depression, WWI or WWII and other life crises. People in times like those cling to each other because they want to get out of their situation and think that anything will be better than where they are. The know it may not always be rainbows and lollypops but if they communicate, even if it's on a minor level, the marriage can work. People now just take every comment personally, react too much, are far too selfish and once the initial intensity decreases, they find that they don't actually like the person they married. People who like each other will either work it out or at the very least, not come to hate each other enough to split up because married life won't be such torture.

 

[JerryLove]

It also "worked back then" for some of the same reasons that it currently works in some other cultures: cultural pressure to remain married.

When you can't get a divorce without the religious authority approving it, and when society will shun you, and you cannot earn a living on your own, and when the police simply return you to your husband if you escape... you tend to remain married.

 

[lsiberian]

No, people who engage in a long term monogamous relationship, cohabitate, and truly know each other before deciding on marriage have better odds. Marriage requires a couple bucks and a couple witnesses. Today it's easier to get married, divorced, and remarried than to find gainful employment!

I've actually heard from numerous folks that the opposite is true. I'd strongly disagree with this assessment. Pre-marital relations takes away one of the incentives in a marriage.

 

[Stereodude]

Why do you people make this leap that allowing same sex marriages will lead to people marring sheep?

The difference is the sheep can not say "I love you" nor can the TV.

Since when does love have to be part of a marriage? That's another modern cultural phenomenon. For centuries people had arranged marriages and in many parts of the world they still do. In some cases the couple don't meet each other until the wedding day. Clearly love is not a prerequisite for marriage. Your insistence on love being a prerequisite for is no different than the cultural tradition that marriage be between a man and a woman that so many people are now against.

I don't have a horse in this race, though I can promise that if the Sheep / Man, and the 3D LED TV / Man, and Polygamists had as big a voting block as other special interest groups, we would also see those pairings allowed.

Uh... There's just one problem, the people of California voted in an overwhelming majority to amend their constitution to define marriage a certain way, and an activist in a black robe who disagreed with the 7 million people who voted for the amendment decided to stop it. So, the size or popularity of the special interest group was irrelevant. People who want to marry sheep or their TV just need to become judges and then they can impose their personal opinions over the opinion of the majority under the guise of fairness.

 

[Nemo128]

I've actually heard from numerous folks that the opposite is true. I'd strongly disagree with this assessment. Pre-marital relations takes away one of the incentives in a marriage.

We'll agree to disagree. The statistics happen to align with my thoughts though; people get married when they shouldn't. My assessment is, if people did that, they'd be less likely to get into something they are not prepared for.

Pre-marital relations? Since people treat marriage the same way they treat jobs, they should treat their car purchases the same way. Go buy a car without test driving it, and when you don't like it, you can just pay the required fees and give it back.

Marriage requires "incentives"? Lawyers, clergymen, and people looking to decrease their taxes are the true benefactors of marriage when we equate it to a simple contractual arrangement that can be entered and exited as simply as signing a piece of paper and cutting a check.

Yeah, like I said, we make a mockery of marriage.

 

[yepimonfire]

I don't think it is a mockery. Who said one cannot or shouldn't divorce? Is that worse than driving a partner to insanity? Or the kids? It is a contract and contracts are broken all the time.

thats why you should know who you marry and be absolutely sure you want them the rest of your life. there isnt much intergrity in a society that can't make commitments.

 

[Rickster71]

It does not take an extensive education to see that "joke" is merely political commentary thinly disguised as an attempt at humor.

I am surprised the mods have not pulled this thread already.

Sounds like you're not addressing your "you people" comment; so I will.
You've made the big assumption that I have a problem with gay marriage. I don't.

The part of the equation that requires reasoning skill, is to understand what the true motivation of a politician is.

 

[jinjuku]

Uh... There's just one problem, the people of California voted in an overwhelming majority to amend their constitution to define marriage a certain way, and an activist in a black robe who disagreed with the 7 million people who voted for the amendment decided to stop it. So, the size or popularity of the special interest group was irrelevant. People who want to marry sheep or their TV just need to become judges and then they can impose their personal opinions over the opinion of the majority under the guise of fairness.

Uh... The actual problem is you can't vote someones 14th Amendment rights away. Doesn't matter if 7 or 70 million people voted for it.

That person in the black robe did his job and interpreted the law correctly. Is there a Civics version of AH that some of you can start participating at? Maybe Civicholics.com is available.

 

[jinjuku]

This whole lot of discrimination based on some ones sexual orientation is just one more bastion of bigotry about to fall.

Much like Civil Rights and Womens Suffrage. You aren't allowed to discriminate based on biological factors. Church is separate from State. I don't need a bunch of Bible thumping, tea totaling hypocrites trying to vote in mandates that effect other people based on their moral compass.

Your religious jurisdiction begins and ends at the doors to your church. Remember not everyone believes in God.

 

[JerryLove]

I've actually heard from numerous folks that the opposite is true. I'd strongly disagree with this assessment. Pre-marital relations takes away one of the incentives in a marriage.

What incentive to remain married is taken away when people are in monogamous, cohabitant relationships where they get to know one another prior to tying the knot?

 

[JerryLove]

Since when does love have to be part of a marriage?

I believe he was being rhetorical for the sake of humor.

Real problems include a sheep / TV's inability to legally consent, and inability to enter into binding contracts.

In this case, the 5th and 14th amendments can only be seen to apply to "people" or "citizens", neither of which sheep / TV's fit into.

Uh... There's just one problem, the people of California voted in an overwhelming majority to amend their constitution to define marriage a certain way, and an activist in a black robe who disagreed with the 7 million people who voted for the amendment decided to stop it. So, the size or popularity of the special interest group was irrelevant. People who want to marry sheep or their TV just need to become judges and then they can impose their personal opinions over the opinion of the majority under the guise of fairness.

You should research the supremacy clause of the US constitution. The only way to enact a law which modifies it is a 2/3rds majority of the national legislature, followed by a majority vote in the legislature of 2/3rds of the states.

You can argue whether prop 8 does indeed violate due process or equality under the law: but if we assume it does (that was the conclusion of the judiciary), then it's unconstitutional.

No. The problem here is not a "will of the people" issue. The only arguable point is the interpretation of the constitution of the US.

 

[Alex2507]

I don't know what you mean by "you people"?

He means Eye-talians.

 

[Stereodude]

Uh... The actual problem is you can't vote someones 14th Amendment rights away. Doesn't matter if 7 or 70 million people voted for it.

Well, we're going to have agree to disagree on this one. The 14th Amendment doesn't guarantee anyone's right to marry. You must have missed the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Since marriage isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution or any amendments the states have the exclusive rights to regulate marriage.

Maybe you should brush up on your Federalism.